* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:33:15AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Well having transition packages would definitely be part of the plan,
> > > so that shouldn't be an issue.
> >
> > FWIW, I don't see any substantial difference between a package named
>
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:33:15AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Well having transition packages would definitely be part of the plan,
> > so that shouldn't be an issue.
>
> FWIW, I don't see any substantial difference between a package named
> "firefox" that is a transition package, and one th
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 12:05:21AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > > Certainly file/directory names are functional, but the package name is
> > > both labelling and functional. If we call the package firefox, aren't
> > > we claiming that's what it is and hence infringing the mark?
> > IANAL, and a
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:55:33AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:25:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > > > it's sad to see that the safer path (renaming Mozilla applicat
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:55:33AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:25:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > it's sad to see that the safer path (renaming Mozilla applications in
> > > order to avoid being restricted by any t
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:25:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > it's sad to see that the safer path (renaming Mozilla applications in
> > order to avoid being restricted by any trademark policy) was really the
> > one to choose... :-(
> > That w
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:25:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> it's sad to see that the safer path (renaming Mozilla applications in
> order to avoid being restricted by any trademark policy) was really the
> one to choose... :-(
> That was my conclusion[1] and unfortunately it seems that the
Hi,
it's sad to see that the safer path (renaming Mozilla applications in
order to avoid being restricted by any trademark policy) was really the
one to choose... :-(
That was my conclusion[1] and unfortunately it seems that the other
possibility (reaching a trademark agreement) only worked for a
8 matches
Mail list logo
